Student Computer Security and Hacker Essay

Student Computer Security and Hacker Essay Student: Computer Security and Hacker Essay Honor Among Thieves and The Hacker Ethic - Information Technology Essay The rights of a person have been well defined by law and sanctions such as the United Nations, however how are they able to protect the rights of these people when they are on a un moderated medium such as the internet? A question like this brings up many grey areas of the law that have allowed the proliferation of what seems to be the most feared type of person on the internet – often referred to as Hackers. To be hacked into means that your security measures have been compromised and that they have access to your information system. With the increasing dependence of computers to store sensitive data ranging from credit cards to correspondence, the need to protect the users of these computer sytems rises also. In order to work on society to becoming better managed in protecting their interests, work needs to be done on not so much the hardware involved, but the peoples attitudes towards them. Even if a Computer was in the ideal world properly protected, a slip of the passwords or allowed physical access can bring the whole security subsystem down. All of the worked up controversy has to be put away that they (hackers) are the most powerful computer users that exist as well. If there was an Information system developed involving a large network of computer systems, who would be the most potentially dangerous person? The hacker infiltrating the system sequentially, or the System Administrator that oversees the entire maintenance of the systems with a completeness of this view much like the Popular series â€Å"Big Brother†. In this tv show, a group of people are put into a house that is a spiers bug dream – with about 120 Cameras and other nifty inventions, the every move of the person is tracked. You would think that such would be an outrage, yet this is not the case. Being the highest rating show by far on that network, The show can pull millions of dollars each time it is shown to the millions of viewers tuning in. The reason this has been mentioned is because a virus or a large â€Å"break in† by a hacker receives similar attention. The â€Å"Mellisa/I love you† virus has been the most recent and had the largest effect of any other virus before it. Reported on the news, and reaching practically everyone, this virus spread itself by embedding itself on the infected machine, and sends out emails to everyone on the persons address book on the computer. With an exponential type of effect such as this, the virus could spread to millions of people in days (and it did).If this virus had other intentions though, like data collection on the computer and sending it back to a central source, the level of profitable information received back would rival any other source of voluntary collected information in the world. When a virus is found one way or another on a common users system though, the first reaction is almost knee jerk like, being on how to remove the present virus. If there was potential to receive a virus in the first place, I feel that how it had became an problem in the first place needs to be addressed just as importantly.If a company were to do this, that is obviously unethical as their means are for profit. It is a different kettle of fish when a hacker presents a similar situation. The aurora of a hacker is a mystical one that has eluded many of their victims. To say that they are rude and arrogant would be far from the truth. A well-known hacker by the name of Kevin Mitnick bared these ethics out to the court in what appears to be a quite truthful testimony. He aired his previous hacking experience was mostly of social engineering (using pretences of other people to intimidate low level employee’s to do what they will) and that security systems were much easier to bypass by using this method. All of the time he had spent hacking also, he said in his testimony as not to make a single dime at all1 This is far in contrast to something

Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium

Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution takes a very long time to become visible. Generation after generation can come and go before any changes in a species are observed. There is some debate in the scientific community as to how quickly evolution occurs. The two generally accepted ideas for rates of evolution are called gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism Based on geology and the findings of James Hutton and Charles Lyell, gradualism states that large changes are actually the culmination very small changes that build up over time. Scientists have found evidence of gradualism in  geologic processes, which the  Prince Edward Island Department of education  describes as the ...processes at work in the earths landforms and surfaces. The mechanisms involved, weathering, erosion, and plate tectonics, combine processes that are in some respects destructive and in others constructive. Geologic processes are long, slow changes that occur over thousands or even millions of years. When Charles Darwin first began formulating his theory of evolution, he adopted this idea. The fossil record is evidence that supports this view. There are many transitional fossils that show structural adaptations of species as they transform into new species. Proponents of gradualism say that the geologic time scale helps show how species have changed over the different eras since life began on Earth. Punctuated Equilibrium Punctuated equilibrium, by contrast, is based on the idea that since you cannot see changes in a species, there must be very long periods when no changes occur. Punctuated equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs in short bursts followed long periods of equilibrium.  Put another way, long periods of equilibrium (no change) are punctuated by short periods of rapid change. Proponents of punctuated equilibrium included such scientists as  William Bateson, a strong opponent of Darwins views,  who argued that species do not evolve gradually. This camp of scientists believes that change happens very rapidly with long periods of stability and no change in between. Usually, the driving force of evolution is some sort of change in the environment that necessitates a need for quick change, they argue. Fossils Key to Both Views Strangely enough, scientists in both camps cite the fossil record as evidence to support their views. Proponents of punctuated equilibrium point out that there are many  missing links  in the fossil record. If gradualism is the correct model for the rate of evolution, they argue, there should be fossil records that show evidence of slow, gradual change. Those links never really existed, to begin with, say the proponents of punctuated equilibrium, so that removes the issue of missing links in evolution. Darwin also pointed to fossil evidence that showed slight changes in the body structure of the species over time, often leading to  vestigial structures. Of course, the fossil record is incomplete, leading to the problem of the missing links. Currently, neither hypothesis is considered more accurate. More evidence will be needed before gradualism or punctuated equilibrium is declared the actual mechanism for the rate of evolution.